FIRST DIVISION

[G.R. No. 135802. March 3, 2000.]

PRISCILLA L. TAN, petitioner, vs. NORTHWEST AIRLINES, INC.,
respondent.
DECISION
PARDO, J :
p

Petitioner Priscilla L. Tan appeals via certiorari from the decision of the Court of
Appeals 1 arming with modication 2 the decision of the trial court, 3 ordering
respondent to pay petitioner the following amounts: (1) P15,000.00, as actual
damages; (2) P100,000.00, as moral damages; (3) P50,000.00, as exemplary
damages; (4) P30,000.00, as and for attorney's fees; and (6) costs.
Cdpr

The case before the Court traces its roots from an action for damages for breach of
contract of air carriage for failure to deliver petitioner's baggages on the date of her
arrival led on June 29, 1994 with the Regional Trial Court, Makati, Branch 150
against respondent Northwest Airlines, Inc., a foreign corporation engaged in the
business of air transportation.
The antecedent facts are as follows:
On May 31, 1994, Priscilla L. Tan and Connie Tan boarded Northwest Airlines Flight
29 in Chicago, U.S.A. bound for the Philippines, with a stop-over at Detroit, U.S.A.
They arrived at the Ninoy Aquino International Airport (NAIA) on June 1, 1994 at
about 10:40 in the evening.
Upon their arrival, petitioner and her companion Connie Tan found that their
baggages were missing. They returned to the airport in the evening of the following
day and they were informed that their baggages might still be in another plane in
Tokyo, Japan.
On June 3, 1994, they recovered their baggages and discovered that some of its
contents were destroyed and soiled.
LLjur

Claiming that they "suered mental anguish, sleepless nights and great damage"
because of Northwest's failure to inform them in advance that their baggages would
not be loaded on the same ight they boarded and because of their delayed arrival,
they demanded from Northwest Airlines compensation for the damages they
suered. On June 15, 1994 and June 22, 1994, petitioner sent demand letters to
Northwest Airlines, but the latter did not respond. Hence, the ling of the case with

the regional trial court.

In its answer to the complaint, respondent Northwest Airlines did not deny that the
baggages of petitioners were not loaded on Northwest Flight 29. Petitioner's
baggages could not be carried on the same ight because of "weight and balance
restrictions." However, the baggages were loaded in another Northwest Airlines
flight, which arrived in the evening of June 2, 1994.
When petitioner received her baggages in damaged condition, Northwest oered to
either (1) reimburse the cost or repair of the bags; or (2) reimburse the cost for the
purchase of new bags, upon submission of receipts.
After due trial, on June 10, 1996, the trial court rendered decision nding
respondent Northwest Airlines, Inc. liable for damages, as follows:
"WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered ordering the defendant to pay
the plaintiff the following amounts:
"1.

P15,000.00, as actual damages;

"2.

P100,000.00, as moral damages;

"3.

P50,000.00, as exemplary damages;

"4.

P30,000.00, as and for attorney's fees and

"5.

Costs.

cdphil

"SO ORDERED.
"Given this 10th day of June, 1996 at Makati City.
"ERNA FALLORAN ALIPOSA
"Judge" 4

Respondent Northwest Airlines, Inc. appealed from the trial court's decision to the
Court of Appeals contending that the court a quo erred in nding it guilty of breach
of contract of carriage and of willful misconduct and awarded damages which had no
basis in fact or were otherwise excessive.
On September 30, 1998, the Court of Appeals promulgated its decision partially
granting the appeal by deleting the award of moral and exemplary damages and
reducing the attorney's fees, specifically providing that:
"WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the appeal is hereby GRANTED
partially. The Decision of the lower court dated June 10, 1996 is AFFIRMED
with the modication that the award of moral and exemplary damages is
deleted and the amount of attorney's fees is reduced to ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00).
"No pronouncement as to costs.

"SO ORDERED." 5

Hence, this appeal. 6

The issue is whether respondent is liable for moral and exemplary damages for
willful misconduct and breach of the contract of air carriage.
The petition is without merit.
We agree with the Court of Appeals that respondent was not guilty of willful
misconduct. "For willful misconduct to exist there must be a showing that the acts
complained of were impelled by an intention to violate the law, or were in
persistent disregard of one's rights. It must be evidenced by a agrantly or
shamefully wrong or improper conduct." 7
Contrary to petitioner's contention, there was nothing in the conduct of respondent
which showed that they were motivated by malice or bad faith in loading her
baggages on another plane. Due to weight and balance restrictions, as a safety
measure, respondent airline had to transport the baggages on a dierent ight, but
with the same expected date and time of arrival in the Philippines. As aptly
explained by respondent:
"To ensure the safety of each ight, Northwest's personnel determine every
ight's compliance with "weight and balance restrictions." They check the
factors like weight of the aircraft used for the ight gas input, passenger
and crew load, baggage weight, all in relation to the wind factor anticipated
on the flight. If there is an overload, i.e., a perceived safety risk, the aircraft's
load will be reduced by o-loading cargo, which will then be placed on the
next available flight." 8

It is admitted that respondent failed to deliver petitioner's luggages on time.

However, there was no showing of malice in such failure. By its concern for safety,
respondent had to ship the baggages in another ight with the same date of arrival.
LexLib

Hence, the Court of Appeals correctly held that respondent did not act in bad faith. 9
"Bad faith does not simply connote bad judgment or negligence, it imports a
dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious doing of a wrong, a breach
of known duty through some motive or interest or ill-will that partakes of the
nature of fraud." 10
"Where in breaching the contract of carriage the defendant airline is not shown to
have acted fraudulently or in bad faith, liability for damages is limited to the natural
and probable consequences of the breach of obligation which the parties had
foreseen or could have reasonably foreseen. In that case, such liability does not
include moral and exemplary damages." 11
Consequently, we have no reason to reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
WHEREFORE, the Court DENIES the petition for lack of merit. The Court AFFIRMS

the decision of the Court of Appeals deleting, however, the award of attorney's fees.
cdtai

No costs.
SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J ., Puno, Kapunan and Ynares-Santiago, JJ ., concur.

Footnotes

1.

In CA-G.R. CV No. 54438, decision promulgated on September 30, 1998, Justice

Martin, Jr., ponente, and Justices Callejo, Sr. and Umali, concurring.

2.

The Court of Appeals deleted the award of moral and exemplary damages and
reduced the attorney's fees to P10,000.00.

3.

In Civil Case No. 94-2042, Regional Trial Court, Branch 150, Makati City, Judge Erna
Falloran Aliposa, presiding.

4.

Trial Court's Decision, Rollo, p. 41.

5.

Court of Appeal's Decision, Rollo, p. 34.

6.

Filed on October 21, 1996, Rollo, pp. 5-20.

7.

Luna vs . Court of Appeals , 216 SCRA 107, 113 [1992].

8.

Respondent's Comment, Rollo, pp. 60-78, at 64.

9.

Sarkies Tours Philippines, Inc. vs . Court of Appeals, 280 SCRA 58 [1997].

10.

Ford Philippines, Inc. vs . Court of Appeals , 267 SCRA 320 [1997]; Llorente, Jr. vs .
Sandiganbayan, 287 SCRA 382 [1998].

11.

Cathay Pacific Airways, Ltd. vs . Court of Appeals , 219 SCRA 520, 526 [1993].